WASHINGTON – When Republicans gather in New York City in 10 days for their national convention – just a few subway stops from where the World Trade Center once stood – there is little doubt they will stage a tribute to the thousands killed in the terrorist attacks there nearly three years ago.

It may resemble the tribute Democrats orchestrated at their convention in Boston last month, which featured a vigil, prose by actress Glenn Close and a speech by a woman whose pregnant daughter was killed in the attacks.

But don't think for a minute this is just about remembering Sept. 11, 2001, and honoring the dead.

It is also about politics.

The terrorist attacks and the national security discussion they spawned are playing out in campaign ads and stump speeches. In doing so, candidates and political groups have moved into uncharted waters as they struggle to define what is appropriate, what is exploitative and what responsibility they bear when resurrecting – arguably for their advantage – a bloody and hideous day in the country's history.

"Politicians are asking, 'How can we use (Sept. 11) to our benefit, without it hurting us?' " said Glenn Hansen, director of the Political Communications Center at the University of Oklahoma. "If this were my daughter who was killed, I'd be saying it was unethical, and that you've crossed the line. But as somebody who studies freedom of speech, I'm not sure we should be drawing lines and telling candidates this is what can and cannot be used."

For one thing, the Republican National Convention, which begins Aug. 30 and ends Sept. 2, was scheduled later in the year than any other U.S. political convention. Some believe the timing was an effort to tie the event to the third anniversary of the terrorist attacks.

Perhaps the most obvious use of Sept. 11 images for campaign purposes came in March, when the Bush camp aired a TV ad that said America is safer and stronger than it was three years ago, and showed two firefighters pulling a flag-draped coffin from the World Trade Center debris.

In June, a pro-GOP group called Progress for America Voter Fund aired an ad showing President Bush shaking hands with firefighters amid the wreckage in New York. The ad asked: "Could John Kerry have shown this leadership?"

Both ads infuriated some victims' relatives and firefighters groups.

Nikki Stern, executive director of the Families of September 11, declined to talk specifically about Bush, but warned that "children don't need images popping up, without any kind of warning, that shows the place where their dad died."

"Both parties are going to be orchestrating media opportunities for their advantage," said Stern, whose husband, Jim Poport, was killed in the attack on the World Trade Center. "But I don't see the purpose in using images of devastation or death."

The 267,000-member International Association of Firefighters complained that the March ad used a picture of a coffin containing the remains of a firefighter, while the June ad left the impression that all firefighters support Bush. The association has endorsed Kerry, the Democratic nominee.

Bush campaign spokesman Terry Holt defended the March ad as a "respectful tribute" and said a better example of misusing 9/11 images is "Fahrenheit 9/11," the Michael Moore film.

"It is one thing to have a legitimate disagreement about the issues that 9/11 confronted the country with . . . and then there's this crass commercialism," Holt said.

There are plenty of firefighters and victims' relatives who support Bush and his campaign's advertising approach.

"He's not using the tragedies to get re-elected," said Jason Reimer, who launched a "Firefighters for Bush" Web site.

"This is something that happened, and it happened on his watch, and ignoring it would be . . . like ignoring Pearl Harbor or any other large event in American history," said Reimer, a firefighter in Reedley, a community near Fresno.

Kerry often refers to Sept. 11 when discussing his national security policies. His campaign routinely uses his military service during the Vietnam War, and the medals he received, to suggest the Massachusetts senator has what it takes to protect Americans from threats.

At the Democratic National Convention, a tribute featured a speech by Haleema Salie, whose daughter, Rahma, and son-in-law, Michael, were aboard American Airlines Flight 11 when it crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. Thousands of convention delegates lifted miniature flashlights to honor the dead.

Everyone agrees that politicians must be careful when using 9/11 images, but few can agree on where to draw the line between what's appropriate and what's exploitative.

At the 1944 Democratic National Convention, the party chairman suggested Adolf Hitler would have liked a Republican president – "a good example of stepping over the line," said Randall J. Larsen, a retired Air Force colonel and now a homeland security consultant. Using Sept. 11 images, he said, hardly goes that far.

"Sept. 11 is going to be involved in politics, we have to understand, for the rest of our lives," Larsen said. "How can you talk about national security without talking about 9/11?"

Said Bill Benoit, a University of Missouri professor who studies political campaigns: "I don't think there will ever be universal agreement on what is appropriate and inappropriate in using these images."

Republican leaders won't divulge their plans for remembering Sept. 11 at their convention. But it is certain they won't ignore it.

"It wasn't entirely chance that the Republican convention is in New York and happening just before the anniversary of 9/11," Benoit said. "I can't imagine that many of the speeches at the convention, if not most, won't make some allusion to the war on terror."